Wednesday, March 21, 2012

E.P.A. - Clean Water Act and U.S. Constitution - #3749 - Supreme Court (9-0) Sides with Private Property Owners in Landmark EPA Case - The Blaze (2) VIDEO: Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against EPA 'Strong-Arming of Regulated Parties' - Reason TV










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. 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. 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.  Read more.........


Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against EPA "Strong-Arming of Regulated Parties" -  Reason TV -  48, 477 views.  Note: This Video was made before the Supreme Court decision.  The Supreme Court handed down a major win for both property rights and due process rights today in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. At issue was the EPA’s use of so-called administrative compliance orders, which are government commands that allowed the agency to regulate the use of private property without also subjecting its actions to judicial review. In a 9-0 ruling, with the majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia and separate concurring opinions filed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court declared that these EPA actions must be subject to judicial review. Here’s a key portion of Scalia’s majority opinion:  the Government notes that Congress passed the clean Water Act in large part to respond to the inefficiency of then-existing remedies for water pollution. Compliance orders, as noted above, can obtain quick remediation through voluntary compliance. The Government warns that the EPA is less likely to use the orders if they are subject to judicial review. That may be true—but it will be true for all agency actions subjected to judicial review.... And there is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into “voluntary compliance” without the opportunity for judicial review—even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’s jurisdiction.  Read more..........

No comments:

Post a Comment