Save Our State of Massachusetts

Supreme Court rules for Property Owners!

Perhaps the importance of this Supreme Court decision can best be summarized by someone who left a comment to this article:

This case is evident of the power of right from wrong. The unjust dealt to the Sacketts (and many other Americans, annually) by the EPA is nothing short of a government domineering it’s citizens with their hands tied behind their back. The unlimited resources (tax payers dollars), combined with regulation written and enforced by the fox, makes for an impossible defense by the hen. The Justices unanimous decision against the rogue agency should be a wake up call to EPA, which continues to operate beyond the scope intended by the U.S. Constitution. This American couple refused to lay idle and allow their life’s dreams to be destroyed by the self empowered Environmental Protection Agency. This was a battle fought at an extremely high personal cost to the Sacketts and was for the benefit of every property owner in this country. I for one, commend them for their efforts and thank them for the sacrifices they have made to pursue “right”. Congratulations Mike and Chantel, and job well done Pacific Legal Foundation!

WASHINGTON –  The Supreme Court has come forcefully down on the side of an Idaho couple in its fight against the Environmental Protection Agency, unanimously ruling Wednesday that the couple can challenge an EPA order to stop construction of their home on property designated a wetland.

Read more:

Supreme Court sides with property owners in dispute with EPA

By Associated Press   Wednesday, March 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in a property rights case, ruling they can go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.

Wednesday’s decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed without a permit.

In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court rejected EPA’s argument that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest orders like the one issued to the Sacketts would compromise the agency’s ability to deal with water pollution.

“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.

In this case, the couple objected to the determination that their small lot contained wetlands that are regulated by the Clean Water Act, and they complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order without risking fines that can mount quickly.

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. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a separate opinion that the only issue decided by the court Wednesday is the Sacketts’ ability to contest the EPA finding that their property is subject to the Clean Water Act. The court did not decide largers issues, Ginsburg said.

“On that understanding, I join the court’s opinion,” she said.

In another separate opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called on Congress to clear up confusion over 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.

In 2005, the Sacketts paid $23,000 for a .63-acre lot near scenic Priest Lake. They decided to start building a modest, three-bedroom home early in 2007.

They had filled part of the property with rocks and soil, in preparation for construction, when federal officials showed up and ordered a halt in the work.

In a statement, the Sacketts praised the court for “affirming that we have rights, and that the EPA is not a law unto itself.”

The case is Sackett v. EPA, 10-1062.

Defend Property Rights Against EPA ‘Navigable Waters’ Overreach
The notorious Clean Water Act of 1972 has been used by both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to curtail mining, control land use in agricultural zones, stop expansion of energy companies, and bring an end to construction projects. As The New American Senior Editor William F. Jasper stated, “The ‘navigable waters’ authority is one of the many dangerous avenues that have allowed the agency to engage in enormous unconstitutional assaults on the rights of property owners. Farmers, ranchers, homeowners, business owners, and municipalities have been forced to abide by costly, and sometimes impossible-to-achieve, EPA mandates that have little or nothing to do with protecting the environment and even less to do with exercising legitimate federal authority.”

Legislation introduced by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) would target these abuses by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012, S. 2122, with seven cosponsors so far, would rein in the EPA’s regulatory overreach over “navigable waters” on private property that has destroyed the American dream of home building for many Americans. A companion bill will soon be introduced in the House.

“Environmental protection must be balanced with the fundamental American right to private property,” Sen. Paul has said, adding, “It is time to bring common sense to federal water policy, and I do so on behalf of the thousands of property owners across the country who have been met with aggression from the EPA and Army Corps for wetlands issues.”

From Sen. Paul’s website are these provisions in The Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012:

  • Redefine “navigable waters” to explicitly clarify that waters must actually be navigable in fact, or “permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water that form geographical features commonly known as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes that are connected to waters that are navigable-in-fact.”
  • Excludes ephemeral or intermittent streams — the streams that sometimes form when rain falls — from federal jurisdiction.
  • Restrains the EPA and the Army Corps from regulating or “interpreting” the definition of a navigable water without Congressional authorization.
  • Protects the rights of states to have primary authority over the land and water within their borders.
  • Prohibits federal agents from entering private property without the express consent of the landowner. [Emphasis added.]
  • Requires the government to pay double the value of the land to any landowner whose property value is diminished by a wetlands designation.

Passage of this bill would result in less regulatory heavy-handedness by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers in their dealings with property owners and businesses by ending their authority over truly non-navigable waters. However, this bill is stuck in the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) who has a pattern of opposing any attempts to rein in the EPA’s out-of-control powers.  Here is a list of the Senate Majority and Minority leaders of the Committee that you can call immediately and ask for their support to get this bill reported out of committee and passed by the Senate:

Senate Majority Members
Barbara Boxer  (202) 224-3553
Max Baucus  (202) 224-2651
Thomas R. Carper  (202) 224-2441
Frank R. Lautenberg (202) 224-3224
Benjamin L. Cardin  (202) 224-4524
Bernard Sanders  (202) 224-5141
Sheldon Whitehouse  (202) 224-2921
Tom Udall  (202) 224-6621
Jeff Merkley   (202) 224-3753
Kirsten Gillibrand (202) 224-4451
Senate Minority Members
James M. Inhofe (202) 224-4721
David Vitter (202) 224-4623
John Barrasso 202-224-6441
Jeff Sessions (202) 224-4124
Mike Crapo (202) 224-6142
Lamar Alexander (202) 224-4944
Mike Johanns (202) 224-4224
John Boozman 202) 224-4843

When graded from a constitutional perspective, this is an A+ bill. It should help tremendously to rein in the EPA’s and the Corps of Engineers’ aggressive regulatory tactics that harm American businesses and families.

Urge your Representative and Senators to cosponsor, support, promote and pass this important bill today using our prewritten, editable email message.


Your friends at The John Birch Society


4 comments on “Supreme Court rules for Property Owners!

  1. neenergyobserver
    March 23, 2012

    Reblogged this on nebraskaenergyobserver and commented:
    A Victory to celebrate, although it is a small one.

  2. Pingback: KNIGHT: Taming the EPA monster – Washington Times « Gds44's Blog

  3. Pingback: Lots of Announcements « SOSMass

  4. Pingback: Misc. Info. « SOSMass

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

SOSMass Archives

%d bloggers like this: