Supreme Court Whacks EPA

FAOL Community Sound Off
1

The Sackett case was discussed here several times over the last year and the Court ruled unanimously this morning in favor of the Sacketts. This will, IMO, do a lot of good for a lot of folks. I have seen the EPA get incredibly far out of bounds with folks over and over again. They caused the State of AK to build a ridiculous series of overpasses at the junction of the Glen and Parks highways to ensure silver salmon spawning water was not adversely affected. Only problem was the road had made the spawning area in the first place and had simply moved the fish from water they had made less favorable when they built the road.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-usa-court-epa-idUSBRE82K0YT20120321

Supreme Court backs landowners in EPA clean water case

Supreme Court backs landowners in EPA clean water case

By James Vicini
WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:52am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners may bring a civil lawsuit challenging a federal government order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and sharply curtails a key Environmental Protection Agency power.

The justices unanimously rejected the U.S. government’s position that individuals or companies must first fail to comply with an EPA order and face potentially costly enforcement action before a court can review the case.
The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia was a victory for an Idaho couple who challenged a 2007 EPA order that required them to restore a wetland they had filled with dirt and rock as they began to build a new vacation home near Priest Lake. They were also told to stop construction on the home.
The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, denied their property had ever contained a wetland and complained they were being forced to comply with an order without a court hearing.

Their appeal drew support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders and General Electric Co, a company that had made a similar challenge to the EPA compliance orders.
The Supreme Court’s ruling comes at a time when the EPA has faced fierce criticism from many Republicans in Congress who say it has issued the most ambitious clean air regulations in decades and has become heavy-handed in enforcement actions.
Scalia concluded the Sacketts may bring a civil lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act to challenge the EPA’s order.
He said that since the EPA’s decision was final and the couple faced potential large fines, they had no other adequate remedy but to bring a civil lawsuit.

Reading his decision from the bench, Scalia said that the Clean Water Act does not prevent judicial review of such orders.
Under the law, violations of the Clean Water Act can result in fines of up to $37,500 per day, plus as much as an additional $37,500 per day for violating the EPA compliance order.
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 compliance orders a year that require accused violators of environmental laws to stop alleged harmful actions and repair any damage that was caused.
The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that a compliance order was not subject to judicial review until later when the EPA has brought an enforcement action and seeks to have a judge rule in its favor.

‘DAY IN COURT’
The court did not reach the broader question of whether the EPA’s order violated the constitutional right of due process. It only held that the federal Administrative Procedures Act, which provides certain rules for federal regulatory agencies, applied.

Scalia said that the Sacketts would not get an adequate remedy if they had to apply to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit and then file suit if that permit is denied.

Government attorneys had defended the compliance orders as a quick way to stop environmental damage and argued that allowing accused polluters to get a court hearing would tie the EPA up in lengthy litigation.

An attorney for the Sacketts argued that they should not have to wait for years for judicial review until the EPA decides to go to court and said the compliance order was coercive, requiring action to avoid potentially huge fines.

Damien Schiff, the attorney for the couple, hailed the ruling. “EPA is not above the law,” he said.
“That’s the bottom line with today’s ruling. This is a great day for Mike and Chantell Sackett, because it confirms that EPA can’t deny them access to justice. EPA can’t repeal the Sacketts’ fundamental right to their day in court,” he said.
The Supreme Court case is Sackett v EPA, No. 10-1062.
(Reporting By James Vicini; Editing by Jackie Frank)

2

About &^$%&$% time! The EPA needs to be reeled in. The cost of fuel us just one reason. The availability of good vehicles(VW diesels) is another. The strong-handed, “you have no rights” approach to land owners is way out of line. It’s about time they got their asses handed to them!!

3

Hiring enough lawyers to drag a case on for an eternity then becomes a licence to pollute for the wealthy. This is another incredibly bad decision by this court

4

Really???

A broadly-written unanimous SCOTUS decision by a notably divided court… Hmmmm…

This was not a case involving wealthy folks at all, especially after what the EPA put them through.

Did you read the part where the EPA gave them no options to use their land and no way to move forward in the courts? Or the part where four experts all said there was no wetlands issue… and the EPA did not even have it mapped as a wetland on their map? And they still had no recourse? Sounds like the EPA was way out of line… again.
art

5

Next to impossible to outlawer the epa. Whether you’re wealthy or a state, you can’t compete with the unlimited taxpayer funded lawering of the epa.

6

It would seem the Sackett’s did just that!

7

Seems the Sacketts won on just cause.

8

I don’t want to be a downer on this decision, but what it did (thankfully) was give the Sacketts the right to seek redress in the courts. That doesn’t mean that some judge might not make them comply with EPA’s demands. Wetland regulation is now completely off the chain and is not going to get better with the current Supreme Court. Remember that in some jurisdictions a drainage or roadside ditch is a wetlands, as is any part of a pasture that has saturated soils for two consecutive weeks during the year, and 64% of the entire state of Louisiana.

9

Our Government is supposed to be a series of Checks and Balances, what the EPA was trying to do was eliminate that system, what The court did here is make sure that system stays in place.

Eric

10

They haven’t really ‘won’ anything yet, except the right to sue. It hasn’t even got started good, yet. What will probably happen is that the EPA will drag the case out for so long that it will be financially impossible for the landowners to continue.

I don’t see where the EPA has any authority to tell a private land owner what they can do with their own land. These people are not polluting anything, just developing land they legally own. They are not discharging anything into a river, or public lake, nor destroying any significant portion of habitat. If the government is worried about ‘wetlands’, then they should buy the land from the owners at a fair price, and designate it as a wildlife preserve. Otherwise…they should butt out…and take care of their own business, like lowering gas prices, and repealing the Recreational Access Tax (RAT).

11

Wetlands litigation is complex, frustrating and sometimes infuriating. The problem is the Supreme Court and EPA. (Note, while wetland regulation is a Corps of Engineers program, EPA is the overseer.)
EPA seemingly wants control of all private property through their programs. Nuff said.
The Supreme Court seemed on its way to curtailing the scope of their jurisdiction, but the latest controlling decision indicated that any potentially wetland site with a sufficient “nexus” to a navigable water is subject to the Corp’s jurisdiction. Because it is that kind of Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy didn’t adequated define “nexus” and the Corps/EPA has made their own definition, which is not limited by distance, water quality/quantity, or logic.

I present an annual seminar on wetland regulation and I caution you not to delve into it or your head will hurt. It never gets better.

12

Things like this make me wish I had gone to Law School instead of Medical School, so I could get in on a piece of the action.

I don’t really know how it is with wetlands, but the 5th Amendment clearly states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. And the Supreme Court has ruled that that also means the interference of physical use of the property as well (as in the case of low flying aircraft over a property near an airport). It they want to restrict the use of the property as a ‘wetlands’, then according to the law, as I read it, they have to compensate the owners for the difference in property value, or buy it outright, at the fair market value. This doesn’t seem that complicated. The property was deeded and sold as Private Property. Since the deed is registered, then it was obviously done with government approval. If they want to change the status, then they have to pay for it, according to the 5th Amendment.

That’s the way it should be, according to law. What they actually do in the courts, I have no idea, but nowadays, very little would surprise me.

13

Before we bash the EPA too much let’s remember it was not too long ago rivers in this country caught fire. The rainbow sheen of petrochemicals covered much of our rivers and lakes. And, it was not unusual to see turds floating in the water.

Gig was right. These folks have earned the right to sue. They have not resolved the original issue. The arrogance of one government agency to presume it is exempt from the checks and balances of the other branches speaks more to the quality of the lawyers working for the EPA than for the agency itself.
I don’t know the particulars of this case but, I would presume the wet lands were designated as part of a local, county or state government plan for flood control or sanitation. The EPA’s role is, once designated, to insure the land is protected.

It has never been true that a property owner may do what they want with their land. Property has always come with covenants, easements, or zoning restrictions. Covenants limiting the color you may paint your house or how close to the property lines you may build. Utility companies may dig holes on your property or cut your trees with impunity. You may also be required to build a “too big” house to keep the riff raff out. And, if you believe living in a rural area or having owned the land for generations is a protection, research the impact of imminent domain on historic family farms and interstate highway construction.

And, if you think I am just defending the EPA because it doesn’t impact me, I have attached a photo of the three feet deep twenty feet long hole dug in my front yard last week as a result of an EPA mandated separation of the storm and sanitary sewers in my town. I had hoped for sidewalks what with my increased taxes and water bill. What I got is a “rain garden” or in the vernacular a “big f***ing hole” in my front yard.

Hole.jpg
Hole.jpg511×639 86.2 KB

I for one am glad I don’t have to wear fireproof waders.

14

The EPA is definitely needed and control of the EPA is definitely needed. When bureaucrats are allowed to run unchecked they become bigger and worse versions of Barney Fife. The average landowner doesn’t have the funds to hire lawyers and take them to court. Trust me a lawyer goes through $50,000 amazingly fast. I think part of the problem is the best qualified people have for years gone to private industry, the less qualified frequently ended up in government employment, it didn’t pay as well back then but was secure and had great benefits. The less bright make and enforce the regulations. The best and brightest have great jobs helping companies and individuals work around or comply with regulations. However, they cost as much as lawyers. The little guy too often find themselves at the mercy of the government, which has none.

I will save my opinions on the Corp of Engineers for a later time.

15

What we need is Government and it’s agencies that can work in the middle ground, to get the best for all concerned, not just a few. We need to get back to a Government Of the People, By the people and For the People, just my $0.02, take care. Just keep on keeping on, John.

16

O.K., so when is the high court going to go to work on the excessive powers of the I.R.S.(?)

17

The answer to the IRS is the Fair Tax, which would eliminate the IRS. My brother worked for the IRS and hated it. But he did meet his wife there and they have 3 great kids. She still works there as one of the people who help get people out of trouble with them.