Posted on 01/07/2012 9:10:16 AM PST by WilliamIII
An Idaho businessman and his wife are pleading with the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the federal government’s “bullying” over the family’s simple plan to build a three-bedroom home on a plot of ground they purchased in an existing subdivision in Idaho, plans for which they already have obtained all the legally necessary building permits.
The issue is that the Environmental Protection Agency claims that the land – which is surrounded by existing homes on three adjacent lots, has no standing water, and has no streams or creeks on it – is “wetlands.”
This is how Mike and Chantell Sackett describe the shock when they found federal EPA agents on their land, ordering them to stop foundation work, “restore” the land with non-native species, fence it, guard it for several years, and then request a permission to continue their home project that in all likelihood would be denied.
“Bullying,” Chantell told a recent congressional hearing.
“That’s what the EPA does.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I suspect that some bureaucrat coveted the property, either for themselves or for a crony or there is some personal pique against the Sacketts.
There is some rotten individual(s) behind this somewhere at the state level or below.
The EPA is part of the communists takeover of America. (Getting tired of “communists” yet? Then better wake up)
The way they determine this “wetlands” designation seems to be by flying over a given area and then designating lower elevation patches as “wetlands.” I looked at a property in Northeast Florida that was perfectly dry, in a moderately built-up area and far from any water but which had recently been designated as “wetlands” (thereby destroying its value) in a recently produced map.
I’m not sure it’s so much for the personal gain of the bureaucrat as for the ideological program of the EPA as a whole, which is that human beings are bad and human habitation is evil. Both the EPA and its ideological bent have become much stronger since the arrival of Obama, and if they could, they would declare the entire US unbuildable land.
I’ve posted this advice before, but it fits this thread too.
If you own land and are thinking of building, there are a few steps you need to take first.
1. Kill everything living there; dispose of remains off-site.
2. Fill in everything that ever looked like a mud puddle.
3. Kill/remove all moisture loving plant life. Wetlands vegetation is the kiss of death.
4. If there is a perched water table (clay layer near the surface which slows or prevents surface water from percolating into the substrata) punch lots of holes through it and fill them with gravel for easy drainage.
5. Be prepared for some minor official to tell you “sorry, your land is designated on the wetlands map” and to pay lots of money to challenge the map.
Normally I’d say check the map first, but any questions about it puts you on their radar screen, maybe before you can correct the “deficiencies”.
If this is the story I remember from previous postings here, the guy is a sophisticated developer who knows the rules and chose to ignore them. And the writer is either ignorant of wetland rules or is deliberately spinning the story.
The EPA rules are irrational, but blame congress for that. It needs a political fix, not judicial activism.
This is going to be one of these pivotal cases. If the EPA claims to have jurisdiction over who gets to build where based on waterways and wetlands, then they needs to have a defined permitting process just like local agencies have. Make everyone deal with them, then if they start getting out of control there will be political pressure to correct it. As it is, it will take “Ruby Ridge” style confrontations with the EPA to draw attention to the abuse.
Their land, purchased for $23,000, is about two-thirds of an acre and is about 500 feet from Priest Lake, Idaho.
But while they were working on foundation preparations, the EPA agents arrived, claimed the property is “wetlands” and ordered them to stop work and launch a full restoration project that even included installing plants that were not native – at their own expense. They were told after they guarded the land for several years they would be allowed to pay $250,000 to request permission to complete their home.
SO what?
It got us an important precedent case in the Supreme court to reign in this idiocy.
The EPA is what will bring down the US gov. It will be the branch that eventually ushers in widespread illegitimacy of the government due to “white is black” type logic and rules that make no sense. Think USSR by the 80’s - it fell because it was a joke. No Russian citizen took anything it decreed seriously.
People in general only tolerate so much nonsense before you just become a joke (like people running for office- laughing at is the kiss of death).
” the guy is a sophisticated developer who knows the rules and chose to ignore them. “
You mean like getting a building permit? He applied for a building permit, from the county, and got one - a permit to build a three bedroom home on the site that he applied for in the permit application. There was already a sewer hookup on the property, and the property has already been zoned residential by the county, a platted subdivision.
Explain how this guy has “chosen to ignore” the rules? Unless you’re saying that all of us need to go to the federal government whenever we propose to do anything on our private property, e.g. put up a fence or renovate the kitchen — it isn’t enough to go to the local land-use authorities. Is that what you mean?
The EPA rules are irrational, but blame congress for that. It needs a political fix, not judicial activism.
When Congress’ rules violate people’s constitutional rights, it’s the role of the courts to step in.
5. Be prepared for some minor official to tell you “sorry, your land is designated on the wetlands map” and to pay lots of money to challenge the map. - JimRed
It is more to you point #5 JimRed of where the EPA is going. The comunists of old wanted to "own" all land, natural resources (i.e water) and minerals. But the Neo-communist simply want to "control" all of these (like fascists) via the EPA. This is what they want. And in order for you to possibly change anything, you have to pay...them. See my tagline.
For real change in the EPA, the endangered species act has to be changed drastically along with the EPA's ability to designate viable land as wetland.
“Yes we have too much government. Take the Sackett family in Priest Lake, Idaho. With a growing family and a good job, they purchased a building lot in an exiting subdivision. The lot was surrounded by 3 other homes; and seemed like the perfect place to build their new home needed for a growing family. This was a routine experience that many American families go through. Routine until the heavy hand of the EPA got involved.”
Why not do a quick trip to Idaho and film a commercial on the site of this lot?
Pan the camera around and show people what the site looks like?
“Neo-communist simply want to “control” all of these (like fascists) via the EPA.”
And that makes sense, because if the gummit out and out owns it, they can’t collect taxes on it.
I wonder, do these people have a defense fund? I would contribute some money if they did.
I am not among those who said he ignored any rules. My post was about preemptive actions to COMPLY with the "rules". Get rid of anything that does not comply with them, in other words.
As far as going to the Federal government for everything, we are darned close to that now, with our massive overregulation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.