http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...E.view&pageId=267893

quote A legal team asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in an Idaho controversy is warning landowners that under the compliance order procedures being used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency virtually anyone could be told to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in permit fees – or face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties – over ordinary home construction work. A petition for certiorari has been submitted to the court by Pacific Legal, an organization working on behalf of the Sackett family of Idaho. They own a half-acre lot in a residential area near Priest Lake and wanted to build a home. But after excavation work was begun the EPA "swooped in" with a "compliance order" that requires them to undo the excavation and restore the "wetlands," and then leave it for three years at which point they could seek a "permit" that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or they could wait for the EPA to prosecute the alleged Clean Water Act violations, which could result in penalties of $25,000-plus per day. According to officials with Pacific Legal, the Sacketts' land has no standing water or any continuously flowing water, and they would like an opportunity to challenge the EPA's "wetlands" determination in court. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned court in the land, said before a court could issue a ruling on the EPA's order, the family would have to go through a years-long, $200,000-plus process of formally applying for a federal wetlands permit. According to the petition, "Ignoring the compliance order is no option, for several reasons. First, the CWA imposes significant civil penalties for violating compliance orders. … Just one month of noncompliance puts the landowner at risk of civil liability of $750,000. A year's worth of noncompliance puts the liability at $9,000,000." WND calls seeking comment from the Environmental Protection Agency did not produce a response. "The Sacketts are being hit with an unconscionable price tag for the right to challenge the feds' power play," Damien Schiff, lead attorney in the case, said in a prepared statement. "Basic principles of due process say that the Sacketts deserve their day in court, to argue for their property rights. As we're arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court, putting an exorbitant price tag on the pursuit of justice, and the defense of property rights, is flat-out unconstitutional." Mike and Chantell Sackett explained their situation themselves: "The issue in this case is simple, but critically important to all property owners, and everyone who values fair play and due process," Schiff said. "When bureaucrats try to impose their will on private property, shouldn't the owners be permitted their day in court, to challenge the government's claim of control?" Said Chantell, "They've stopped our life … I just think they're bullying us. I think they do whatever they want." The video, produced by Pacific Legal, points out that the EPA could exercise such jurisdiction over any parcel of land anywhere in the nation. The petition explains to the high court that the Sacketts "were provided no evidentiary hearing or opportunity to contest the order." And it explains the 5th Amendment, which states, "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," should be applied. The 9th Circuit conclusion "leaves property owners like the Sacketts in an impossible situation: either go through with the permit process that you believe is completely unnecessary and spend more money than your property is worth to 'purchase' your chance at your day in court; or invite an enforcement action by EPA that may give you your day in court but only at the price of ruinous civil penalties and, depending on the EPA's ire, criminal sanctions for underlying violations of the CWA." Even the permitting process is not realistic, it argues. "In many instances the agencies will not entertain a permit application until the compliance order has been resolved … For the Sacketts, that would mean (a) removing all the fill; and, (b) restoring the preexisting 'wetlands,' which would necessitate leaving the property untouched for a prolonged period of time," the brief argues. 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."

And some people wonder why the EPA needs to be eliminated.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-26-2011).]

All this over a half an acre of land in the middle of BFE Idaho?

Extortion I tell ya!

Seriously though, it is a crock of good old fashioned, hot, steamy,

A situation like this presented itself in my town. I moved here in 1988. I always wondered why nobody built on some nice land in town. Streets were there, lots marked off, sewer and water all ready. No building, no "For Sale" signs. Even at the height of the real estate boom.

Turns out, this area was designated as a possible habitat for some dumb animal. Bird, snake, whatever. EPA stopped all construction years before, and was "strudying" the issue. Just about three years ago, I read in the newspapaer, the EPA had decided the area was NOT an endanged species habitat. And this area wasn't huge, it was maybe a couple of hundred acres at most.

Oops, our bad, please continue with your life! But not even an "our bad", just a continue whaere you left off. After over twenty years.

Supreme Court Sides With Private Property Owner in Landmark EPA Case
http://www.theblaze.com/sto...n-landmark-epa-case/

quote Today, the Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in Sackett v. EPA, a private property rights case, ruling they have the right to go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency policy that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day. In 2007 the EPA halted private property owners Mike and Chantell Sackett from building a new home on their property adjacent to a scenic lake in Idaho. The reasoning? The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed. Stop Building Your Dream Home: The Sacketts empty lot The first phase of construction had already been completed on the private residence when federal officials showed up and ordered a halt in the work. A fine of $30,000 a day would be levied against the Sackett’s were they to continue building. The couple was then disallowed by the agency to obtain the permits needed to continue construction in local courts. The Sacketts: Couple wins unprecedented Supreme Court case against EPA In this case, the couple objected to the determination that their small lot contained wetlands that would be harmed by construction and argued there was no reasonable way to challenge the order without risking steep fines. The Sacketts were confounded at the EPA’s findings because their property was a completely landlocked lot within an existing subdivision. As Blaze writer Becket Adams recently reported, “When Chantelle Sackett asked for evidence, EPA pointed her to the National Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory, which showed them that their lot… was not on an existing wetland.” Yep, according to the Wetlands Inventory, the Sackett’s property wasn’t on existing wetlands. So how did the EPA respond to this? “The EPA responded [by issuing] what’s known as a compliance order, which said that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to fines of up to $37,500 a day.” (Related: Read our previous coverage on the story for more background) The EPA’s argument in court today stated that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest federal orders would compromise the agency’s ability to deal with water pollution via the Clean Water Act. The majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia flatly rejects that notion. “Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity,” Scalia said. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a separate opinion that the only issue decided by the court was a property owners ability to contest the EPA findings specifically concerning the Clean Water Act. “On that understanding, I join the court’s opinion,” she said. Justice Samuel Alito called for congressional action to specify the reach of the Clean Water Act. Alito said that federal regulators could assert authority over any property that is wet for even part of the year, not just rivers and streams. The court’s opinion “is better than nothing, but only clarification of the reach of the Clean Water Act can rectify the underlying problem,” Alito said. (Related: Read more on the court’s opinion) The victorious couple after the ruling In a statement, the Sacketts commended the ruling, “We are very thankful to the Supreme Court for affirming that we have rights, and that the EPA is not a law unto itself and that the EPA is not beyond the control of the courts and the Constitution.” Their statement went on to attack the EPA’s tactics, “The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell for the past five years. It said we could not go to court and challenge their bogus claim that our small lot had ‘wetlands’ on it. As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were living in some totalitarian country.” Principal Attorney Damien M. Schiff noted after the ruling, “The EPA is not above the law.“ continuing on to say ” EPA will have to be prepared to show a reviewing court that its wetlands regulations are really necessary — not just a power trip.”

It seems the little guy has won this round. The EPA should be abolished for abuse of power.

quote The EPA’s argument in court today stated that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest federal orders would compromise the agency’s ability to deal with water pollution via the Clean Water Act.

Is that saying that they believe the right to a speedy trial is not important? Or at least as important as they think they are.

Brad

I support the reasons for the EPA, but I have to admit that some of their rulings don't make sense to me. I wonder if the Sackets legal bill will be more than their property is worth. I'm not saying that the EPAs ruling was wrong, but on the surface it looks questionable and should be looked into. Any bureaucracy can go overboard if their is no supervision, and by supervision I don't mean completely undermining the entire purpose of the EPA.

The little guy merely won the right to get in the ring. We'll have to see how the fight goes.

BTW, who's paying for all the lawyers these people need? They ain't cheap, and the EPA uses MY money.

quote Originally posted by Zeb: The little guy merely won the right to get in the ring. We'll have to see how the fight goes. BTW, who's paying for all the lawyers these people need? They ain't cheap, and the EPA uses MY money.

Answered your own question there man.

Anything the Government has is paid for by the people....It's not like they can just print money out of think air...


Brad

2005 EPA run by BuSh2CORP appointees
following nut-con DOGMA to make the feds look bad

we know nut-con's will do anything to make the feds look bad
they will gleefully tell you they want to limit fed's powers by any means

yes there is a vast rightwing conspiracy
and the puppets here are just a small part
there is a even bigger faction inside doing the same chit

so why the surprise

I guess I never realized just how much the Dem Nut Dogma favored intrusion into a person's private property.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I guess I never realized just how much the Dem Nut Dogma favored intrusion into a person's private property.

And that is just the tip of the iceburg.