Couple saved, E.P.A. loses...

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
I brought this case up in another thread, but here is the outcome. This poor couple, who jumped through all the environmental whacko hoops to get the necessary permits to build their home, were still caught up in green police red tape.

The original story...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/support-the-...supreme-court/

Michael and Chantell Sackett were building their dream home on less than two-thirds of an acre of land near Priest Lake in northern Idaho. They owned a small business nearby and had been looking forward to the day when they could stop renting — they purchased the property in 2005 for $23,000. In 2007, gravel was being laid in preparation for the pouring of a concrete foundation.
However, construction screeched to a halt upon the order of three agents of the Environmental Protection Agency. The property was a federally protected “wetlands,” the Sacketts were told, and they were served with a compliance order to immediately restore the property to its prior condition.

In fact, the EPA compliance order went even further. Relying on authority it claimed to have received under the Clean Water Act, EPA officials prescribed a set of conditions that went beyond the prior condition of the property when the Sacketts purchased it.
The Sacketts were ordered to plant “native scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands plants and [have the property] seeded with native herbaceous plants.” Further, they were ordered to fence the property and monitor plant growth for three years.
All of this came as quite a shock to the Sacketts because their sliver of land was located in a platted residential subdivision with water and sewer hook-ups, and was bordered by roads on the front and rear and existing homes on either side.
There wasn’t any natural running or standing water on the property. None of the surrounding homes in the community were designated as having occupied wetlands.
The Sacketts conducted regulatory due diligence before they bought the property. Even the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had been consulted. After buying the property, they applied for and received all of the pertinent local permits to build a residential dwelling as local zoning ordinances permit.
The EPA compliance order ended all of their hard work and saddled them with exorbitant financial costs. They faced monstrous-level fines — currently set at $37,500 for each day they failed to comply with the order.
Today, the Sacketts owe more than $40 million in fines.
Knowing there was an obvious mistake, the Sacketts attempted to administratively resolve the matter. They requested from the EPA documentation that would identify the property as wetlands. The federal government’s online wetlandsinventory did not list their property, so the Sacketts asked the EPA to set aside its compliance order.
The EPA refused, claiming the Sacketts had no standing to question the agency’s decision.

The result...


http://www.cnbc.com/id/46808695


The Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in a property rights case, ruling they can go to court to challenge anEnvironmental Protection Agency order that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,624
Reaction score
4,429
Location
Michigan
But they have not won their case. They only won the right to sue, and then only for a very narrow range. Chances are they may still lose everything, and do-gooder tree-huggers will celebrate.
 

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,325
Reaction score
493
Location
Staffordshire, England
What a ludicrous situation! Aye, if they were planning on polluting an existing and protected wetland sanctuary that would be one thing, this sounds like quite another.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
Glad to hear that the Supreme Court has essentially ordered the case to go to trial. The government's position here would have left the timing and means to challenge entirely under their control, giving the people no recourse to challenge injunctive actions.
 

Latest Discussions

Top