Supreme Court rules against EPA

[Janice]

Justice Is Sweet: The Sackett v. EPA Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that homeowners may sue when they think the Environmental Protection Agency has treated them unfairly.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that homeowners may sue when they think the Environmental Protection Agency has treated them unfairly.

The case involves an Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who own a 2.3-acre residential lot in Bonner County just north of Priest Lake, but separated from the lake by several lots containing permanent structures.

Before building a house, the Sacketts filled in part of their lot with dirt and rock. Some months later, they received from the EPA a compliance order saying the wetlands on their property connected with the lake. The lake in turn was considered "navigable" by the EPA, making it a navigable water of the United States. Filling in the wetland was causing pollution to enter the lake.

The Clean Water Act bans "the discharge of any pollutant by any person," without a permit, into "navigable waters."

The order told the Sacketts to restore the land along the lines of an EPA work plan.

The couple was facing some serious fines. Under a federal law, a civil penalty for non-compliance may not exceed $37,500 "per day for each violation." The government contends that the amount doubles to $75,000 when the EPA prevails against a person who has been issued a compliance order but has failed to comply.

The Sacketts filed suit against the EPA under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, saying their Fifth Amendment due process rights were being violated. A federal judge dismissed their suit for lack of jurisdiction and a federal appeals court agreed.

The Supreme Court reversed.

Writing for the whole court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Clean Water Act is not a statute that "preclude[s] judicial review" under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Newsradiowtam1100.com

-------------------------------



And just for fun, here's a bit of Alito's EPA-smackdown:

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees. The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy.

[JB]

That was a good 9-0 win. Let's hope it carries over into Tuesday.

[Starbuck]

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees. The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy.

The "Alito smackdown".

The EPA is itself a disaster. Lisa Jackson has done nothing but overextend an already inept, bloated, lazy and insignificant bureaucracy.

[Arroyo_Doble]

That was a good 9-0 win. Let's hope it carries over into Tuesday.

When it's unanimous, you are on pretty firm ground.

[Novaheart]

The "wetlands" overreach has been going on for some time. Marine vegetation is one of the major markers, and it shouldn't be. Down the street from me are three manmade swales used to divert runoff to ground water instead of sending it and all the dog crap and road dust down into Boca Ciega Bay. The speed with which these swales convert from grassy depressions into marine environments is truly amazing. Within a couple of days after heavy rains, marine vegetation is growing in the swales and marine birds are already claiming territory. If we have a long period of frequent rains, then the swales start acting like coastal ponds and growing small critters.

None of this should matter if common sense is applied.

[Odysseus]

The "wetlands" overreach has been going on for some time. Marine vegetation is one of the major markers, and it shouldn't be. Down the street from me are three manmade swales used to divert runoff to ground water instead of sending it and all the dog crap and road dust down into Boca Ciega Bay. The speed with which these swales convert from grassy depressions into marine environments is truly amazing. Within a couple of days after heavy rains, marine vegetation is growing in the swales and marine birds are already claiming territory. If we have a long period of frequent rains, then the swales start acting like coastal ponds and growing small critters.

None of this should matter if common sense is applied.

Or the Constitution. The authority of the federal government extends only to the navigable waters of the United States. This was interpreted to mean that it also had jurisdiction over areas that bleed into those waters, and then any area with water on it, to include puddles.

[Novaheart]

Or the Constitution. The authority of the federal government extends only to the navigable waters of the United States. This was interpreted to mean that it also had jurisdiction over areas that bleed into those waters, and then any area with water on it, to include puddles.

Let's not throw the baby out with the brackish water here. The EPA didn't come into being entirely because we had a whole bunch of money and manpower laying around with nothing to do. Individuals, towns, businesses, and corporations really were acting with disregard for the environment and the health of the waterways and ultimately the people. When I was a child, the Wicomico River was so nasty I wasn't allowed to go into it; the hospital had dumped waste directly into the river for decades. The Anacostia River was even worse- it was an open sewer. As recently as 1988 I was walking my dog at Haines point on a summer day and she was thirsty: she would not drink from the brown, green, and orange waters of the Potomac River. When I was a kid, Boca Ciega Bay was clear and had an incredible amount of sea grass and tropical shellfish living in it. When I returned in 1994 it was on its way back from having been nearly killed- murky where it once was clear, nearly barren where it once was teeming with life.

[Odysseus]

Let's not throw the baby out with the brackish water here. The EPA didn't come into being entirely because we had a whole bunch of money and manpower laying around with nothing to do. Individuals, towns, businesses, and corporations really were acting with disregard for the environment and the health of the waterways and ultimately the people. When I was a child, the Wicomico River was so nasty I wasn't allowed to go into it; the hospital had dumped waste directly into the river for decades. The Anacostia River was even worse- it was an open sewer. As recently as 1988 I was walking my dog at Haines point on a summer day and she was thirsty: she would not drink from the brown, green, and orange waters of the Potomac River. When I was a kid, Boca Ciega Bay was clear and had an incredible amount of sea grass and tropical shellfish living in it. When I returned in 1994 it was on its way back from having been nearly killed- murky where it once was clear, nearly barren where it once was teeming with life.

The operative word there is "river", which is a navigable waterway. Dumping waste in rivers can be prohibited by the federal government under the Constitution. Dictating what property owners can build on their own land, which may not even abut a river, is not within congress' Constitutional authority. Bays, rivers and other navigable waters, yes. Puddles, drainage ditches, rain gutters, no.

[JB]

The EPA didn't come into being entirely because we had a whole bunch of money and manpower laying around with nothing to do. <snip>

If taxpayers were ever afforded the opportunity to direct their own taxes....other than what would be my usual suspects: intelligence, military, the EPA would definitely be on my list.

[Janice]

Update ...



The Next Step for the Sacketts

In 2005, Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a piece of land from a friend. They planned to build a house on it. While the lot was near Idaho’s beautiful Priest Lake, it was part of an existing subdivision, and it already had a sewer hookup. There were other houses nearby — including a row of them between the Sacketts’ lot and the lake.

“We went to the county and paid our fees, got a building permit, and went through the checklist,” Mike remembers. “Then the EPA shows up.” >>>

When the Sacketts filled part of the lot with dirt and rock, the EPA issued a “compliance order,” defiance of which carries a fine of $75,000 a day, instructing them to return the lot to its previous, undisturbed state.

The Sacketts wanted to prove in court that their lot didn’t contain wetlands, and the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian public-interest law firm, took their case. But the EPA denied them any sort of hearing whatsoever. In a 9–0 decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled that property owners may sue the EPA once it has issued a compliance order — but the Sacketts’ underlying case is far from over.

Why does the EPA believe the Sacketts’ land constitutes “wetlands”? The issue has not yet been argued in court, thanks to the EPA’s refusal to grant the Sacketts a hearing until the Supreme Court ordered it. >>> “Part of the absurdity is that the EPA has never, to our knowledge, done any on-site tests,” Schiff says. “They appear to be using an eyeball determination, which is completely inadequate.” >>>

Even if the Sacketts lose in court, the fight won’t be over. In a concurrence in last week’s Supreme Court decision, Justice Samuel Alito took the somewhat unusual step of calling out Congress for its vague language, encouraging the legislative branch to clarify the Clean Water Act. Kentucky senator Rand Paul — along with eight Republican co-sponsors — is hoping to do just that. >>>

There has been no vote on the bill so far. “As far as when we’re going to see it come up, I’m not sure,” says Paul spokeswoman Moira Bagley. “I think that Senator Paul is continuing to press this issue to all of his colleagues, Democrat and Republican. . . . We’re hoping that when people see how out of control the EPA is, we’ll be able to get bipartisan support.” >>>

In the meantime, Mike Sackett is optimistic. “My feeling on the odds is, what were the odds of us getting into the Supreme Court?” he says. “We know our land isn’t wetlands. We hired professionals to come and do a delineation. If they want to come and fight, we will fight until the house is built.”

National Review Online

-----------------------------------------

I hope the Sacketts don't forget to sue for remedy and reimbursement of all the harassment and expenses the EPA has heaped on them. The EPA is just one of many bureaucracies that are completely out of control.