E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Pacific Legal Foundation
This property in Priest Lake, Idaho, has become a battleground over the reach of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case that sounds small but could have huge implications for property owners, corporations and federal regulations.
Some of the justices were clearly critical of the Environmental Protection Agency, calling its actions in the case heavy handed.
The justices were considering whether to let an Idaho couple challenge an EPA order identifying their 0.63-acre lot as "protected wetlands."
Justice Samuel Alito called the 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 couple's land is wetlands, something the couple disagrees with, would never be put to a test under current procedure.
The justices will rule by summer.
Mike and Chantell Sackett, the owners of the lot in Idaho, argue the EPA overstepped its jurisdiction by declaring the site a wetland.
Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has rallied for their cause, and their supporters in court include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Manufacturers and even a major corporation, General Electric.
Those allies aren't interested in the specific property but in making it easier to contest EPA compliance orders.
The justices are considering how and when people can challenge the kind of order the Sacketts got. The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they're doing and repair the harm they've caused.
Pacific Legal Foundation
Mike and Chantell Sackett are suing the EPA.
General Electric, for its part, failed to persuade the court to hear its challenge to a similar feature of the Superfund hazardous waste site law. It says the justices should use the Sacketts' case to make clear the government must "provide a timely and meaningful hearing" before companies and individuals are forced to take expensive measures ordered by the EPA.
Environmental groups counter that a purpose of the orders is to make it easier to negotiate a resolution without a protracted legal fight. "These orders are an important tool for EPA and states to facilitate prompt remedies for real and serious environmental harms that are ongoing," said Lawrence Levine, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered how far the Supreme Court should go in a ruling, noting that government agencies often threaten citations when people don't comply with the law. "Health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say: 'Unless you fix this, I'm going to give you a citation.' Fire inspectors, the same thing," he said.
Alito noted that the Sacketts had to wait until the EPA sued them to even challenge the idea that there were wetlands on their property.
"You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: 'You have filled in wetlands, so you can't build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,'" Alito said. "You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don't do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you."
Roberts said that because of the potential fines, few people are going to challenge the EPA's determinations.
"Because of the administrative compliance order, you're really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren't going to say, 'I'm going to risk the $37,000 a day," Roberts said. "All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it's never going to be put to the test."
Couple's claims
The Idaho saga started in 2005 when the Sacketts bought the lot near scenic Priest Lake for $23,000 and planned to build their home there.
The EPA said the Sacketts illegally filled in most of the lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for construction. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none and the EPA threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day unless the site was restored.
The Sacketts -- who are being represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, which advocates for property rights and limited government -- say they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property.
Just before the foundation was to be poured, three EPA officials showed up at the property and said they believed the land was wetlands. They asked to see a permit but then told the workers to stop when none was provided.
Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case.
Mike Sackett says someone must have tipped off the EPA to the work.
"There's no common sense, and the EPA, they've gone rogue," Chantell Sackett said in a recent interview. "They do whatever they want. They bend the rules and they make your life hell."
Expert warned them about wetlands
The Natural Resources Defense Council, which filed legal briefs on behalf of the EPA, counters that documents show the Sacketts have left out important parts of the story.
The documents, obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the federal Freedom of Information Act, show that the couple disregarded the opinion of a wetlands expert they hired to evaluate their property.
The Sacketts also passed up an offer from the Army, which shares jurisdiction over wetlands with the EPA, to seek a permit that might have allowed work to continue on the site with little delay, according to the NRDC.
Tom Duebendorfer, a biologist who specializes in wetlands, confirmed to The Associated Press that he advised the Sacketts in May 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land. The Sacketts say that in 2010, other wetlands consultants examined their land and concluded Duebendorfer was wrong.
"I maintain they were wetlands," said Duebendorfer, who says he has worked in the Pacific Northwest for 35 years.
He also said it would have been relatively easy and inexpensive for the Sacketts to fill out what is called an "after-the-fact" permit with the Corps of Engineers that is intended for situations like the Sacketts'.
Levine, the NRDC attorney, said the permit is "meant for the little guy."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
I favor both sides of this argument, BUT you're a complete moron if you buy land without knowing what you can or can't do with it. Sort of like buying a house without a home inspection.
The EPA Leftists believe in taking the property of hard working citizens without "just compensation."
The Supremes MUST overrule that.
There is that pesky thing (pesky to Administration Leftists) called the Constitution.
As opposed to corporate Rightists, who believe in taking the property of hard working citizens so that corporations can profit?
Madison's attitude proves we'll never get rid of the things like these polices or the TSA or EPA or anyone else. Blame, blame, blame, blame and unwilling to work with anyone.
So, let me get this right. A couple buys a half-acre residential lot AFTER being told by an expert that it is in defined wetlands and that the properties on three sides of it are also wetlands. But they got it on the cheap and disregarded their own expert. Then they started building their house without a permit, knowing that it was on federally-protected land. But even then, they could have applied for a waiver which would probably have allowed them to build on the lot. But they refused to reply.
@Madison --- you confuse "taking" property with restricting its uses. That is exactly what zoning is all about, for example. Virtually every piece of land sold these days comes with some such restrictions. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that forbids restrictions of use on property and nothing in the law that considers it as "taking" (which is a legal term encompassing theft.)
I cannot build any structure on my property that is closer than 15 feet to the street. I cannot mine for gold, copper, oil, and natural gas on my property. I cannot put a chain link fence along the front side of my property. Lots of things I can't do, but I knew them all before I bought. And I did not complain that someone was "taking" my land. And I do not attempt to break the law by building without a permit.
It looks like this couple knew exactly what they were doing and got some land on the cheap with the intention of breaking existing laws by building on it without a permit and in defiance of EPA attempts to conserve wetlands. The name for this type of people is "scofflaw." The couple belongs in jail.
They were warned and went ahead and bought the land anyway. How about a little thing called personal responsibility? After all, nobody forced them to buy land they couldn't develop.
The documents, obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the federal Freedom of Information Act, show that the couple disregarded the opinion of a wetlands expert they hired to evaluate their property.
The Sacketts also passed up an offer from the Army, which shares jurisdiction over wetlands with the EPA, to seek a permit that might have allowed work to continue on the site with little delay, according to the NRDC.
So wait, they just assumed that because they bought this land they can do whatever they want with it? Then they act like the 'big mean EPA' is out to get them when two different sources told them what was up with their land?
@Madison From NY
The case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the EPA “taking” anyone’s property. The issue is whether or not the couple can build on the property. The EPA is not trying to take their property.
Good grief, sometimes I wonder if republicans EVER tell the truth.
The article, unfortunately, is riddled with right wing spin-speak. In reality, several recent presidents have dramatically weakened the EPA. Today, on most issues, the EPA is a toothless servant of big business. If you doubt that, just look at any of the many cases where people have been exposed to harmful chemicals dumped into the water supply by big business. Anyone trying to get the EPA to do anything meaningful about it might as well be trying to get Gomer Pyle to singlehandedly take out a massive enemy military base.
Anyone who has built or moved into a home in Florida knows about wetlands, this is not new and it actually increases property values by assuring the buyer that there will be no additional development to the surrounding land. You have to be an idiot (and that's an understatement) to not know it prior to purchase.
The fact that they had to "fill in most of the lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for construction." might be a clue that the land was wetlands and not stable enough to build on.
The reaction here is pathetic. It's the classic line of horsesh*t known as "I didn't do what I should have when I bought this place, so now MY rights are more important than anyone else's".
And it can be summed up by the property owners' comment:
1) It was wetlands before he tried to fill it in. He failed to find out everything he should have about his property before he bought it. It's the buyer's responsibility to find out things like this BEFORE you spend your money.
2) he is violating the existing law - 'gone rogue' by filling it in without following the law.
3) he is 'bending the rules' just like he claims they are.
4) He's trying to play the 'My rights are more important than anyone else's or the law.
I feel for the guy - I bought land that had some wetlands on it without knowing it - and had to lower the selling price (to below what I bought it for) when I sold it because of the restrictions on that part of the land. HOWEVER - that doesn't give him the right to decide that he's not going to do due diligence when he buys the property, then ignore the laws after that.
His rights do not trump the law - no matter how badly that it sucks.
Seems like Madison is all set for folks just doing what they want... who wants to start a pig farm on either side of his place? <<rolleyes>>
The Corporate apologists are an odd bunch. W/E the Corporation does is fine, then when something like the Love Canal pops up they are feign some crocodile tears.
If left to their own devices Corporations would completely DESTROY the environment the never ceasing quest for profit. The EPA has too little influence.
And it isn't a left wing or right wing issue, it is a right or wrong issue. Is it right or wrong to allow the destruction of our only home?
Those claiming the Sacketts ignored their own experts need to keep reading. They got a second opinion which said they weren't wetlands. This means the real battle comes down to which expert is right.
I'm curious as to how it came to the Supreme Court. Who lost the last case? Has it been consistently one-sided (EPA always loosing and appealing, or the Sacketts always loosing and appealing), or has it been divided? That could give us a hint as to what's really going on here.
The fact that the Supreme Court took this at all should tell all of us that there's more going on here.
I have no love for the EPA. They recite exactly what the government tells them too regardless if it is right or wrong.These are the same people who declared that the dust cloud from the Twin Towers was safe thereby denying anyone caught in the cloud medical help for chemical poisoning. Now you have rescue workers with medical problems that can't be fixed 10 yrs down the road and people who have died because they never were given prompt treatment. Remember the government is still denying that the nuclear tests done in the 50's never caused any problems.
The picture at the top of the article shows the land, there is no "wetland" there to speak of, it's just a big dirt lot. EPA fails here. As does this so called expert:
First of all, we are talking less than an acre of land, which is insifnificant by any standards. Secondly, those who say the purchaser behaved irresponsibly didn't read far enough to note that they did consult with other experts. I don't imagine that building anything on an actual wetland is going to stand the test of time, with a foundation being erroded by constant moisture-or perhaps not even setting properly in the first place...This isn't about protecting wet lands.....plenty of wet lands have been destroyed with government blessing. This is about flexing muscle and proving the power of a governmental agency. I would be interested to know the ownership of the adjoining properties and what is being done or has been done with those properties. How is it that this family is the only one to have run afoul of the EPA or come to their notice and attention with less than an acre of land in question. And why weren't they stopped when the sale of the property (a matter of public record) was completed. Should the real estate professional handling this transaction have alerted them to the "protected nature" of the piece of property under disclosure? There are alot more questions than answers.
Prohibition and Sue,
Show me the picture after a good hard rain. They got a second opinion. Good for them. They still ignored the first opinion and took the risk. They lost the bet. But they were offered a simple solution to still be able to do what they wanted. Get a permit. They'd rather not get a permit and would rather blame someone else for their actions. Where's the personal responsibility? Why is it my problem, and the problem of every taxpayer, that they don't want to go through a simple process to build their home? Heck, if they'd just shut up and gotten the darn permit, they'd probably be living in their new home right now.
I'd love for you to explain why these folks are not responsible for their actions and why they are entitled to ignore the law.
Madison - read the article. No one's taking anyone's property. Also, read the Constitution before you wave it like a flag. Zoning-type laws have been challenged in the past under the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause. But the only problem has been when one person's property has been held to a different standard than others. If someone tells you 75% of your property is surrounded by wetlands and your property is in the wetlands, you should be treated the same as others who own wetlands property.
Do teabaggers buy their reality from a different store than the rest of the planet?
Prohibition, the photo shows the property AFTER it was filled in by the owners with rocks and gravel to build on. And, which expert are you referring to that "failed"? The one that found it was wetlands, or the ones they found that would dispute the findings?
I am not sure what you teabaggers have against the EPA. It is a republican creation. The concept of "wetlands" isn't some effete "liberal" creation, but is a real thing that needs to be preserved as much as possible. Ask Rich Parry, Dick Cheney or George Bush if they support unfettered destruction of wetlands. As the article clearly stated, there are procedures available if a landowner wants to build on wetlands. The couple in the article felt it was more important to project their "rights" than to confirm they would not be in violation. If I had one expert tell me yes, and one tell me no, I'd get a ruling from the EPA itself.
Those claiming the Sacketts ignored their own experts need to keep reading. They got a second opinion which said they weren't wetlands.
You mean this paragraph:
The Sacketts say that in 2010, other wetlands consultants examined their land and concluded Duebendorfer was wrong.
Okay, so why weren't the experts' names published? Seems like the first expert felt good enough about his analysis that he spoke with the press to stand up for his conclusion. Besides, the Sacketts acted as if they had no inkling at all that their land was Wetlands, but what they really meant to say was it was brought up to them by the first consultant, but they just ignored him.
Chris-749391
Aw hell. Thank you! For being the voice of reason against the howling mob (rightwing moron)!
Chris-749391
Aw hell. Thank you! For being the voice of reason against the howling mob (rightwing moron)!
I agree with John...If I got one yes and one no, I'd err on safe side and ask the EPA. Then if I still wanted that property, make sure I could get the permits to do what I wanted (that there wasn't something else that would kill my dream), THEN buy the property and proceed with the correct paperwork. Been there, done that, it wasn't hard at all.
This is just the property owners trying to skirt around laws, got caught, now their blaming someone else.
Classic example of our people these days, blame someone else for our own stupidity.
Let's give credit where credit is due. It was big-government Republicans like Bush who implemented some of the biggest obstacles to individual freedom. It was Nixon who got the EPA going. And it was Bush who signed into law the ADA. Both have cost business trillions of dollars to comply which is in turn passed on to the consumer in higher prices.
I had some neighbors near my land in N Florida try to claim my plans for the property violated a sustainability clause in a county ordnance. I found a loophole that allowed for agriculture uses of the property, then I leased the land to a hog farmer for 3 years.
Like most of our policy-makers, they, too are ignorant as to how Earth functions and cycles to create and sustain all life. They don't realize, the wetland is an ecosystem, in the eco-nomy of all life. They believe the Earth exists merely for one specie to devour the Earth and all of the strands in the web of all life or biological diversity.
They are incapable of thinking, man is absolutely committing "suicide" when he kills ecosystems, like this wetland system according to the world's free-thinking, ecologically literate scientists.
The wetland was an ecosystem, in the eco-nomy of life itself! Private property rights?
obamanazi's in action!!!!!!
Meanwhile, in Las Vegas, I'm going to install a 40 ft digital billboard in the backyard of my residential home and see how long it takes for the Home Owner's Association, city, county, and my neighbors to "go rogue" and tell me I can't do whatever the hell I want, and that I knew the property restrictions when I moved in.
But maybe Ron Paul will come champion my cause, and politicize my own stupidity?
Thank you Chris-749391, you are on to something. It is bothersome to see how the media and the non-willing to comply folks, spin this story.
Though not sure that we get all the necessary information in this article, since somebody put the spinn on it, it still appears that the "owners" did not want to comply with the regulations.
Why would anybody want to build in an area where three sides to the property are clearly zoned as wetlands? Somebody is either missing the point or wants to be a horse's ass.
Thank you Chris-749391, you are on to something. It is bothersome to see how the media and the non-willing to comply folks, spinn this story.
Though not sure that we get all the necessary information in this article, since somebody put the spinn on it, it still appears that the "owners" did not want to comply with the regulations.
Why would anybody want to build in an area where three sides to the property are clearly zoned as wetlands. Somebody is either missing the point or wants to be a horse's ass.
Thank you Chris-749391, you are on to something. It is bothersome to see how the media and the non-willing to comply folks, spinn this story.
Though not sure that we get all the necessary information in this article, since somebody put the spinn on it, it still appears that the "owners" did not want to comply with the regulations.
Why would anybody want to build in an area where three sides to the property are clearly zoned as wetlands. Somebody is either missing the point or wants to be a horse's ass.
Thank you Chris-749391, you are on to something. It is bothersome to see how the media and the non-willing to comply folks, spinn this story.
Though not sure that we get all the necessary information in this article, since somebody put the spinn on it, it still appears that the "owners" did not want to comply with the regulations.
Why would anybody want to build in an area where three sides to the property are clearly zoned as wetlands. Somebody is either missing the point or wants to be a horse's ass.
***
Thank you Chris-749391, you are on to something. It is bothersome to see how the media and the non-willing to comply folks, spinn this story.
Though not sure that we get all the necessary information in this article, since somebody put the spinn on it, it still appears that the "owners" did not want to comply with the regulations.
Why would anybody want to build in an area where three sides to the property are clearly zoned as wetlands. Somebody is either missing the point or wants to be a horse's ass.
To Derek on the Love canal comment - you are Way off base.
The original corporations that created and developed love canal as a toxic disposal site did everything well beyond the letter of the law. They built incredible concrete basin to hold the waste. when it was finally finished- the covered the waste and put over 25 feet of earth over the top. They subsequently sold the land - with the proper warnings of what was beneath and admonished the buyers to be careful and only use the land for permitted purposes. That should have been the end - the new owners - took most of the earth off the top, and drilled down into the waste to erect a school .... that's when all the problems started - that company went broke - so the government got jusdgements for the cleanup from the company that put the site into play, but also got judgements on all prior owners, even before the toxic site was created, simply because they were in the ownership chain at some previous point in time. This was totally unfair - where was the government when the company began removing the protective layer?, where was the government when they filed plans to put a school there? several companies went bankrupt that did nothing "wrong" but were in the chain of ownership at some point in the past.
I read the current story with a certain grain of salt - as the reporting media very often skews stories to get readers to agree with their point of view. The companies supporting the suit at least make me take pause and wonder what information, documents, and timeline issues have been conveniently left out by the media. If it were as obvious as the case suggests as written, then there would not be possible a lawsuit. So I say let's wait and see what the court determines is fact and read the ruling when it comes. I think it will offer a fact set far different than this news story.
If the story is correct as written - the buyers were guilty of gross stupidity and arrogance at the least, not to mention the possible laws they broke by not getting or applying for the permits. If the Corp of engineers offered to assist with a perfunctory form - it was extremely stupid to not accept the assistance, at least taking a conservative view.
As to the rocks and dirt issue - I live half way up a hill in a development and considerable dirt had to be trucked in just to make the plot area level. this could very well be the case here, where the rocks and dirt being added at start of construction are common to the terrain. But there is no mention of this in the article, which makes me think the author decided that was either unimportant, would lead to a different reader conclusion, or the author committed the same crime of stupidity.
Let's see how the court considers all the information befor ewe pass judgement the buyers were really arrogant idiots that deserve what they get here.
Yeah, sounds like they were just clueless.
sounds like they are probably clueless about a lot of things, or just think rules don't apply to them.
"I'm Ben, I'm a person. I'm Jerry, I'm a person. Ben & Jerry's ice cream? Not a person."
Disband the EPA
Disband the SC, it's a joke anymore.
Please, corporate PERSONHOOD?!
Whether it's this case or any other, this SCOTUS has been bought and paid for by big business, big oil, big pharma and the little guy is totally hosed. George Bush's appointments of Alito and Roberts are blatant kisses to the a$$ of wealth. Scalia is an arrogant self absorbed windbag and Thomas is worthless as tits on a nun
sounds like these people just didn't care about their property. didn't they do their due diligence when they bought the parcel?
They ignored the expert that told them it was a wetland. Sounds to me like they bought cheap land because someone told them they could hire a guy to lift the restriction, now they are complaining because they can't have it their way.
I agree with Rick-881466, but it sounds like this couple only heard what they wanted to hear and they did not want to hear that the property was protected wetlands and shopped experts till they found one who spouted what they wanted to hear - sort of like opposing sides in court cases.
Absolutely! They knew exactly what they had. And here is Chantell saying "They [the EPA] bend the rules...". Excuse me????
ya, it isn't as if you missed that part where the land owners had other experts say it ISN'T A WETLAND...so ya, lets ignore the parts YOU don't agree with...
If the Army Corps of Engineers says it's a wetlands, it's a wetlands. They are the authorities on wetlands. Yet it sounds as though they offered the couple a procedure to get around the rules and they still didn't comply.
The rule-bending land owners are probably going to win this. They've got heavyweights on their side. The same heavyweights that buy elections.
So, the Sacketts ignored warnings that their property was a wetlands. Then they sued when the EPA did its job. Fortunately for them, they've got a Supreme Court who'll rule in their favor. Not that Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas care anything about small fish like the Sacketts. But this court is there to serve the interests of big polluting corporations who will benefit from a ruling in the Sacketts' favor. The Roberts Court showed its extreme corporatist bias when it "legislated from the bench" to overturn the McCain-Feingold campaing financing law and declare that corporations are people and that money is free speech. The court proved the old saying once again: Money talks Truth walks.
clearly a setup, backed by big corps, to attack the EPA.
no sane person would buy property just to screw with regulators and zoning people.
move on people; nothing real going on. just tea party theater paid for by big business. got to keep the little folks entertained on FOX. Surprised they did not throw in global warming, gay rights and evolution while they were at it. ... and there is no proof in the Bible that the world is round, flat earthers unite!
That's whats truly scary about the article- not that the Sacketts are irresponisble, but looking at the groups behind them. The article says, flat out:
"Those allies aren't interested in the specific property but in making it easier to contest EPA compliance orders."
And since it sounds like the Justices don't like the EPA much either, of course it's best for whatever personal gain to make the rules a little more bendy...
I have gone camping, fishing, etc in North Idaho and around Priest Lake for decades.
over the past decade or so, during the housing 'boom' huge chunks of wooded acreage surrounding this gorgeous lake have been chopped up into small parcels and sold, luring people wanting to 'live out in the country on a lake'...these people just want their little piece of domesticity in a gorgeous setting, nevermind the cost to that 'setting'...
EPA rules are there for a reason, and the first assessment wasn't what they wanted to hear, so they kept shopping around for the opinions that they DID want to hear, and are basing a SC case on it that could end up having FAR reaching effects by allowing big business to circumvent the EPA...this isn't about a 'little guy'...this is about dismantling the EPA, to all intents and purposes...let's get rid of the Clean Air act and Clean Water act...put lead back into gasoline, CFCs into the atmosphere, etc...
The fact is, people can find an 'expert' to give them the answer they want to hear...when I was teaching, a parent wanted her son to be labeled as ADHD so the school would be forced to implement a behavior plan and couldn't kick this kid out...I have worked with ADHD kids...this kid was NOT, all the teachers knew it, as did the school psychologist...but she found 3 experts who certified he was, one of them with a single sentence on their letterhead...
My suggestion to the Sacketts...it's not hard to accommodate the animals those wetlands supported, just adjust what/how you build and live in HARMONY with the nature you so desperately wanted to live with to the point of purchasing remote property in a gorgeous part of the country...quit pissing and moaning
They look like the SNL skit characters, The Two A_— Holes. "Want this lot, babe? Got a wetland." "(smacks gum) Yeahhhhh. What's a wetland?"
The EPA calls everything wetlands. You can have a small dried up creek running through your property, and it is classified as wetlands. EPA definitely goes too FAR. Hope these guys win and the EPA is forced to tone it down.
That's not covered in the scope of this case.
And when a series of heavy rains hits and that small dried up creek drains like it is supposed to, you and your neighbors will be glad you were protected from your own stupidity.
Actually, a creek dry or flowing is a different issue. I live out west for a while and after I saw what happens to streams at certain times of the year only a fool would build on or near one.
Too far? How far is too far? Protection of life on Earth is too far? You'll be sorry when the food chain breaks down and you're sucking pond scum. Soylent green, anyone? anyone?
Okay big government you just go ahead and take away property rights and see where the hell it leads. I really don't think you will like the results.
Nobody's taking your rights away. This couple ignored the warnings they were given. They bought the land anyway and started to develop it. They were stopped. They were given a way to do what they wanted despite ignoring the warnings. They chose instead to blame someone else and throw a hissy fit. They'd rather waste your tax dollars to prove they are entitled and above the law. If they had just admitted they made a mistake in judgement and gotten the permit, they'd be living in their new house happy and healthy.
I'd love to hear why you think it's okay for these people to not be responsible for their actions and why they are entitled to ignore the law that everybody else has to follow.
Pragmatic,
Just like OWS obeyed all laws? Or how about the Illegal immigrants? Most of you defending the EPA are a bunch of hypocrites. Ok for one class to break the law but not another as long as it fits your cause.
I don't have a cause. I speak for myself. OWS should have had permits. They would have gotten a lot of legitimacy if they had. Illegals ought to get green cards or go home. They know what they are supposed to do. Nobody is above the law.
Please tell me why this couple is special. I'm all ears.
Property rights come from the government! Before Europeans came to this continent, the indigeneous people had no concept of owning land. You could live on the land, use the land and its bounty to sustain youself but how could anyone own land? The European idea of owning land came from Kings and Queens and empires. Here in Texas the Spanish and Mexican governments granted land (for a fee or performance) to individuals and when Texas became an independent country the Republic of Texas government took over that job. Your "rights" under the law eminate from the government! You have no "God given right" to own land.
What I am getting from this is these folks had a suspicion, or were told, that their land might be considered wetlands. Then they found someone who said what they wanted to hear and went with that hoping they wouldn't get caught. Normally I'd be on their side but they basically circumvented every opportunity they had and charged forward without regard to the legalities. Tough for them, they should have gotten a permit.
Who in their right mind puchases land without determining what type of property it is then builds on it after they are informed it may be protected. The kicker is the Army Corps of Engineers offered to help them with the permit. I am sick and tired of stupid morons and the "Only I Matter" citizens of the U.S. Grow up and stop being children.
I wish the Supreme Court would hand them their heads for being stupid. This is just a case of "They wouldn't let me do what I want". By dog is more mature than this couple.
Your Dog Should Require A Poop Permitt to go along with your government is everything (socialist) ideaology.
Chuck,
I'm advocating a little personal responsibility here. Nobody forced them to buy the land. They had at the very least a reasonable suspicion that there may be a problem with it. They stuck their fingers in their ears and sang as loud as they could. Then they got burned for it and blamed someone else. Now they are wasting your tax dollars instead of admitting they made a mistake.
I thought the Republicans were big on "personal responsibility". Or is it only when you're talking about feeding the children of the poor, stopping the government from giving people a hand UP to try to get them back on their feet, restricting unemployment, women "keeping their legs closed" (but not "men keeping their fly zipped") ... ?? These people were TOLD that the property was a wetlands. They were OFFERED help by the Army Corps of Engineers and they did what they wanted to anyway and DAMN the laws because they don't apply to these "special" people? What the heck about this COUPLE'S personal responsibility to heed the warnings, get the F'ing permits and be in compliance with THE LAW?
@Cat Could not have said it better myself. The Republicon corporate interest are a bunch of crooks, and their dumb lackeys (people who vote for them) are a bunch of crybaby children.
For this to go to the Supreme Court is a waste of time and money. What a Joke. These people need to learn to work with others and not ignore what they did not want to hear. Unbelievable WASTE of Taxpayers Money this going to the Supreme Court.
Yep...shame the EPA didn't listen to the other experts, and choose to only hear what the EPA wanted to hear...
Some of these comments sound as if whether land is "wetlands" is an arbitrary decision. There are specific criteria that determine if it's a wetlands or not. If those criteria are present it is a wetlands, if they re not, it's not. The Army Corps of Engineers is generally the arbiter, and if they were involved in offering a process by which the people could get a permit, they must have determined it was a wetlands.
Just to inform this discussion, you should know that the EPA has lost at every level of administrative and judicial review of this case, and has continued to press the matter. A Federal appeals court has even said that the EPA was incorrect to declare it a wetlands, yet the bureaucrats continue to press for a permit, for a condition the courts have said does not exist.
Heartlight3, is that law or speculation? (That the Army Corps of Engineers have final say.) I believe that is the heart of the issue here, not whether or not the Sacketts are dumb. But what is the law that allows them to determine the legal status of the land. I don't believe the EPA is required to give them a permit, so they can just as easily deny it. Also I don't know if there is a fee involved with the permit.
Did the Army Corps of Engineers evaluate the land themselves, or just accept Mr. Duebendorfer's results?
There is a Wikipedia article on Sackett v. EPA which talks about "pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order" Which further points to a "due process" issue, and not just some "I wanna do whatever I want" complaint. Please check it out. Basically there is no legal way to prove the EPA wrong unless the EPA sues you, by which time you've already altered the property and have been fined.
They had the information from the beginning on what they could/should do. They decided it was too much trouble to follow the law and are now trying to use the bought & paid for SCOTUS to "MAKE law". As noted they were even offered help from others to get thing right but there rock for brains mentality said no. I have no sympathy for these people. And as noted; This is really a group of large companies that are continually bucking heads with the EPA, and trying to get around the laws that are there to help protect the 99%!!
It shouldn't matter if its a wetland or not. Its their Property.
You are an idiot. Fine I will build a coal spewing power plant next your property
Here's how I look at it. They knew something was amiss. They ignored the advise given to them of their own free will. They bought the land of their own free will. They started to develop it against this advise and found out they needed a permit.
Rather than accept their mistake of judgement, get the damn permit, and build the house, they blamed someone else (the EPA) and are now wasting taxpayer money in a protracted hissy fit of entitlement. If they had just acted like responsible citizens and followed the law, they could have already had the house built and be living happily ever after.
We will call it the coal spewing power plant of liberty.
I'm moving in on the otherside, Richard, with a rendering plant. Breathe deeply!
Just give me the side closest to his well. I have a few hundred thousand gallons of the industrial solvent methanol to dump. I'll dump it on my land, of course, but it will wind up in the well. Richard won't even know it til he goes blind one day. Unless he tries to light his tap water.
Richard, wetlands have a function in nature. They absorb water in times of high precipitation. Filling in wetlands is partly what has caused catastrophic flooding in parts of the country. There is no place for the water to go. Saying people should be able to do whatever they want on their property without considering the laws of nature is incredibly short-sighted, and we can see the results all around us. (See comment #9.2 above.)
We are talking about .63 of an acre not the Amazon flood plane.
i SWEAR TO GOD i'm going to get rich someday, and build pig farms on both sides of the houses of jerkoffs who talk like this, with an injection system for the @!$%# to go right into his well.. and see how much he likes people doing 'what they want with their own property'.
Richard,
Does the saying "I've got some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you " mean anything?
If you purchase a residential property, you cannot just build a big commercial building ... you have to get permits first ... so what is the issue? They purchased wetlands and had they simply cooperated with the EPA/Corps of Engineers, they would have had a permit and the help to "improve" their land. The EPA simply stopped them for building without a permit. The courts had better rule for the EPA, but they probably won't ... who needs forests, clean water, breathable air and wetlands anyway?
residential...law forbids a big commercial building on residential property..but guess what...
the couple was building a HOME...not a power plant or warehouse...
push real hard with both hands...your head will pop out of your butt sooner or later.
cbawl, you miss the point entirely. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, there are valid reasons for not building on wetlands. It's not just some arbitrary rule someone thought up just to give people a hard time. Wetlands serve a function in nature, and there are consequences to ignoring that function.
cbawl: do you even own a home?
you can't add a window without a permit. what makes you think you can build a house with no permits?
"There's no common sense, and the EPA, they've gone rogue," Chantell Sackett said in a recent interview. "They just do whatever they want." It seems as if the latter statement could also be made about the Sackett's as well. And use of the word "rouge," and the general "anything the government does is an intrusion on my rights" attitude makes one think they are probably disgruntled Palin supporters.
The EPA need to have more power to deal with the polluting gas, mining and oil industries. The people and environment need more protection and regulations. The bias right Supreme Court is a joke - they just follow the Republican agenda.
It looks the couple is the rogue element. They know its a wetland and they just covered their ears. They have no common sense.
Gee hired a guy who told them it was a wetlands and more or less to leave alone..
Then later hired a guy who said different, I mean what they wanted to hear...Let the Whinning begin..
Now the Bought and Paid for Supreme Court Justices or Supreme Court Legal Whores express dislike for the EPA, dam who would of figured that would happen...
I don't get this story at all - I looked up the definition of what wetlands are and I can't understand why anybody would want to build anything anywhere that even has a possibility of being classified as wetlands. And isn't this what title insurance is for, to tell you everything about what you are buying? I guess maybe they didn't get title insurance, but that would be their fault and it's just plain dumb not to, and even dumber to build in an area that may be be flooded in the future. When dumb people do dumb things, they pay the price for stupidity. This shouldn't even be a court case. Tax dollars should not be spent on stuff like this. If it can be proven that this land was indeed classified as wetlands before they bought it, they pay the price and can't build. This just requires researching the land, which title companies do for a living. It should not be a court issue - it is an issue between the EPA and this couple only, and they should resolve it through a title company. I'm tired of our legal system and taxes paying for things filling our courts with stuff that people are responsible for and it's time to stop.
Just another couple of attention hungry right wingers who refuse to play by the rules. Screw'em, eminent domain their property and be done with them. They were warned, they ignored it, tough @!$%#.
Is America free or not? The EPA's purpose was to stop environmental damage that harms others. Not to stop someone from changing their own land. Yes I know it sounds like the owners where warned but again either we have rights or we don't. The liberals are all about personal rights as long as it fits their own agenda but so quick to ignore anything they disagree with. You cannot claim a woman has a right to kill her unborn child while saying at the same time these land owners cannot build a house on their own land.
At least these land owners are not killing another human. In fact they are not harming anyone. Yet the BIG GOVERNMENT must regulate and restrict?
If there is not a safety issue or a value issue to their neighbors then there should not be any restrictions.
You obviously have no understanding of the function of a wetlands. Wetlands absorb excess water in times of high precipitation. If these people build on a wetlands they are likely to have flooding problems with their house, and in the area. Filling in wetlands is partly what has caused so much damage from flooding in many areas of the country. If you fill in the wetlands, the water has no place to go. You may have a right to do what you want with your land, but nature will win out in the end. Sometimes foresight can save a lot of trouble in the long run.
Where is the personal responsibility Republicans?
I'm sick of your Republican Tea-Party nanny state where idiots who make mistakes are coddled and protected, and we have to spend TAXPAYER money to defend these people for making a bad purchase?
They made a stupid purchase. They were told (multiple times) that their property was wetlands that required special permits. They were told by the Corps of Engineers that they could help with the permit, and these people ignored it.
Why do you hate the free market so much LaVall?
You obviously know very little about wetlands, stream and river habitats, drainage or flooding. You also have absolutely no idea about what "rights" property owners have and don't have.
No one can just build anything upon property that they own. And anyone building near water or wetlands would be stupid not to completely understand what the potential hazards from said water are. (25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year flood water heights)
Every dwelling requires a construction permit. In most cases, the permit is only issued after a thorough review of the potential impact of said project upon the existing area. If you are moving any earth (digging), filling in low spots (select fill) or paving over unpaved areas (changing the ratio of impervious to pervious surface which determines how much water is infiltrated into the soil and how much runs off) you have to get a permit.
Like it's been said before, your personal freedoms do not trump the laws by which everyone has to live by. To advocated otherwise is to promote anarchy.
Sayitaintso - so you're okay with any law that is passed and believe they should be blindly obeyed? Is that really what you're saying? I just want you to think about the impact of that.
By the way, in Bonner County, Idaho, where this property is located, building permits are not required. Only siting permits are required.
Fill it in, burn it down, toss it away. This planet will always win anyway. It'll just get rid of us to do it.
This time, I agree with the Republican-packed court.